Nikannis Co. v. City of Duluth

121 N.W. 212, 108 Minn. 83, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 636
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 21, 1909
DocketNos. 16,139—(115)
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 121 N.W. 212 (Nikannis Co. v. City of Duluth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nikannis Co. v. City of Duluth, 121 N.W. 212, 108 Minn. 83, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 636 (Mich. 1909).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order for judgment, and also from an order refusing to grant a motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. An order for judgment is not appealable. Ryan v. Kranz, 25 Minn. 362; Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317, 4 N. W. 45; St. Anthony Falls Bank v. Graham, 67 Minn. 318, 69 N. W. 1077.

An order denying a motion to amend the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law is not appealable. Lamprey v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co., 86 Minn. 509, 515, 91 N. W. 29, and cases cited.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cucchiarella v. Kolodzieg
166 N.W.2d 100 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1969)
Rieke v. St. Albans Land Co.
229 N.W. 557 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1930)
Carlson v. Stafford
208 N.W. 413 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
Taylor v. Chicago Great Western Railroad
203 N.W. 434 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Rees v. Nash
171 N.W. 781 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Desaman v. Butler Bros.
136 N.W. 747 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 N.W. 212, 108 Minn. 83, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nikannis-co-v-city-of-duluth-minn-1909.